A certificate of occupancy is only prima facie evidence of title or possession. It is not conclusive proof of title to the land to which it relates. See:Otukpo V. John (2012) 7 NWLR (pt.1299) 357 @ 377; Registered Trustees Mission V. Oloweri (1990) 6 NWLR (pt.158) 514; Adole V. Gwar (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt.1099) 562 @ 590 B C and 618 C E; Ogunleye V. Oni (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt.135) 745.
I have stated elsewhere in this judgment that the disputed land was deemed granted to the Appellants since the rights of those who abandoned the property are deemed transferred to him. Subsequent sale to Dr. Dima was invalid ab initio, in absence of proper termination of the agreement between the Rivers State Government and the Appellant. In Olohunde & Anor V Adeyoju (2000) 79 LRCN 2297 at 2328 paras D – E, this Court had this to say:-
"A certificate of statutory or customary right of occupancy issued under the Land Use Act, 1978; cannot be said to be conclusive evidence of any right, interest or valid title to land in favour of the grantee. It is at best, only a prima facie evidence of such right, interest or title without more and may in appropriate cases be effectively challenged and rendered invalid, null and void."
See Kyari v Alkali & 3 Ors (2001) 5 SCNJ 421.
Generally, a certificate of Occupancy properly issued to a holder presupposes that the holder is the owner in exclusive possession of the land it relates to. The said certificate also raises the rebuttable presumption that at the time of its issuance, there was not in existence, a customary owner whose title has not been revoked. In which case, where it is proved by evidence that someone else has a better title to the said land before the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the said certificate becomes void and shall be liable to be revoked. See; Grace Madu Vs. Dr. Betram Madu (2008) 6 NWLR (pt.1083) 296; (2008) 2-3 SC (Pt.11) 109; (2008) LPELR- 1806 SC.
Appellant's Counsel raised the issue of Certificate of Occupancy issued to the Appellant and that the document gives him a valid title. It is the law that a Certificate of Occupancy is only prima facie evidence of title or right of occupancy in favour of the person whose name is on the Certificate of Occupancy. Where a rebuttal is raised on that presumption, the trial Court is bound to examine all the surrounding circumstances including the nature of the competing claims. Production of a Certificate of Occupancy does not automatically entitle a party to a claim for declaration. See the cases of Adebakin v. Odujebe (1972) 6 SC (page 208), Balogun v. Labiran (1988) 3 NWLR (part 80) page 66, Madu v. Madu (2002) 13 NWLR (784) page 231, Dabo v. Abdullahi (2005) 7 NWLR (Part 923) page 181 and Asheik v. Borno Sate Government (2012) 9 NWLR (Part 1304) page 1 at 26 paras C – D, pages 27 -28 paras G – A and pages 35 -36 paras G – B.
A Certificate of Occupancy issued on the Land Use Act, it must be stressed, cannot be said to be conclusive evidence of any interest or valid title to land in favour of the grantee; it is only prima facie evidence of such right interest or title without more and may in appropriate cases be effectively challenged and rendered invalid, null and void. See Mohamoud J.Lababedi v. Lagos Metal Industries (Nig) Ltd (1973) NSCC.1at 6. Consequently, where it is proved, as in this case, that another person other than the grantee of a certificate of occupancy had a better title to the land, the court may have no option but to set aside the grant or discountenance it as invalid, defective or spurious as the case may be. See Dzungwe v. Gbishe & Another (1985) 2 NWLR (PT, 8) 528 at 540. 2. Ogunleye v. Oni (1990) 2 NWLR (PT.135) 735.
Adole v. Gwar LGC(4/4/2008) D
In terms of known interests in land, the quantum of a statutory right of occupancy remains unclear. To the extent that it can only be granted for a specific term (see section 8 of the Act) it has the semblance of a lease. Also to the extent that a holder has the sole right to and absolute possession of all the improvements on the land during the term of a statutory right of occupancy, a holder does not enjoy more rights than a lessee under common law. When therefore section 34(2) of the Act converted the interest held by an owner to a statutory right of occupancy the Act reduces him to the position of a tenant subject to the control of the state through the governor. As a tenant, he is bound by the implied and express terms of the tenancy. As one of the terms stated in the Act is that a holder requires prior consent in writing of the Military Governor to any alienation, I would answer the question for determination in the affirmative.
Savannah Bank v Ajilo LGC(27/1/1989) I
The state has no right to dispossess a person of his property lawfully acquired without reason and that reason shall be in the public interest with adequate provisions made in the enabling statute to pay compensation that is just. So has the Land Use Act done. The respondent never received any revocation notice, and no gazette or letter divested him of his right, customary right of occupancy which he was deemed to have. The purported right of occupancy issued by the Governor of Oyo State in 1983 is void and all the appellant has in his hand is a piece of paper having no value.
Ogunleye v Oni, LGC(27/4/1990) U
It can therefore be clearly seen that the Decree of 1978 is not a Draconian document it is supposed to be. The land whether developed or undeveloped in any area not urban, that is to say rural area, held by a person under a recognised customary tenure before the commencement of the Decree in March, 1978 would continue such rights and privileges on the said land subject to provisions of the Decree. Whether developed or undeveloped, the holder shall hold such land as if a customary right of occupancy had been granted to him by the local government of that area. If a person desires to alienate such land, his privilege of "presumed grant" may have to be extinguished because he will have to invoke the provisions of S.36(3) (supra) to register his holding for full recognition that he has been issued customary right of occupancy. The holder of such land could invoke the provisions of S.36(3) (supra) at his discretion. Where developed land is not in urban area, the law is that the person in whom such land was vested before the Act came into commencement shall continue to have it vested in him as if he was a holder of a customary right of occupancy granted by a local government. It could therefore be seen that the Land use Act is not a magic wand it is being portrayed to be or a destructive monster that at once swallowed all rights on land and that the Governor or local government with mere issuance of a piece of paper, could divest families of their homes and agricultural lands overnight with a rich holder of certificate of occupancy driving them out with bulldozers and cranes. The law as it is is that in areas not declared urban by a state government everybody remains where he has always been as if the new Act has vested in him a customary right of occupancy.
Ogunleye v Oni, LGC(27/4/1990) S
It is also trite that a Certificate of Occupancy is only prima facie evidence of title or possession, but it is not conclusive proof of title to the land to which it relates. See: Registered Trustees Mission vs Olowoleni (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 158) 514: Otukpo Vs John (Supra): Adole Vs Gwar (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1099) 562: (2008) LPELR-189 (SC) KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.